Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7585 Staff AnalysisMarch 1, 2007 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO_: Z-7585 NAME: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension LOCATION: Located on the Northwest comer of River Bend and River Front Drive DEVELOPER: The Hathaway Group 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.2 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 -= FT. NEW STREET: 0 Residential Tower — 50 units -a Residential Tower — 50 units Time Extension VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,127 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 15, 2004, established the River Tower Short -form PD -R. The approval allowed the construction of a 12 story building on this 3.2 acre site located at the northeast corner of Riverfront Drive and Riverbend Road. The approved plan allowed living areas consisting of 180,000 square feet while the parking deck had 54,000 square feet of area. A maximum building height of 175 feet was approved. The floors consisted of the following: Floors 1 —2 would be used as a parking deck with 50 spaces per level, Floor 3 would be the amenities floor for exercise, storage, meeting, guest suites, Floors 4 —11 would be used as living units at six units per floor and a total of 48 units and Floor 12 would contain two penthouse units. March 1, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.* 1.9, (Cont:) FILE NO.: Z-758.5 The layout provided 43 spaces for visitors, staff and event parking adjacent to Riverfront Drive. Landscape areas were significant with approximately 30 percent of the development reserved for green space. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time extension for implementation of the previously approved PRD. Per Section 36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an effort to refine and further improve the design. As a part of these efforts the developers have engaged a firm to provide additional design and consulting services. All the design changes are well within the perimeters of the previously approved PRD. The intention is to begin actively marketing the River Tower residences within 6 — 8 weeks. The developers have indicated permitting cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of the previously approved PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the Riverdale area which has developed with a mixture of uses. The site is a grass covered vacant site. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the east of the site and another located to the north and northeast. To the south of the site is the Alltel complex and to the west of the site is a private school and a office building. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The River Bend Property Owners Association, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing. 2 March 1, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) _ FILE NC.: Z-7585 D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS - Staff recommends approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 1, 2007) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. Mr. Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. Mr. Hathaway stated the Commission was not here to discuss whether the development should occur only if the time extension should be granted. He stated the development was debated at great length a few years ago and the development was determined appropriate for the site. He stated with a project of this magnitude it took time to address all the dynamics of the development. He stated the developers were working with •a design firm to create a development that would be an asset to the community and the neighbors. Mr. Sterling Cockrill addressed the Commission in opposition of the time extension. He stated the River Bend Property Owners Association was opposed to the development of a thirteen story building on the site. He stated he was opposed to the time extension because the neighbors were sitting on edge waiting for the project to occur. He stated the neighbors want the project to move forward or to be abandoned. Mr. Jim Hathaway stated the developers were committed to building the project. He stated the land had been purchased and design fees paid. He stated the developers had already spent a great deal of money and in the next few months would spend additional funds to move the project forward. The Commission questioned what activities had taken place to date. Mr. Hathaway stated the land was purchased, design had taken place, he stated his firm was not happy with the design so a second firm had been retained to give new insight to the development. He stated the number of units had been reduced and the building pulled away from the rear property line. He stated all the revisions were within the approved PD -R perimeters. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 3 March 1, 2007 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-7585 NAME: River Tower Short -form PD -R Time Extension LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of River Bend and River Front Drive DEVELOPER: The Hathaway Group 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.2 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Residential Tower — 50 units PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Residential Tower— 50 units Time Extension VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,127 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 15, 2004, established the River Tower Short -form PD -R. The approval allowed the construction of a 12 story building on this 3.2 acre site located at the northeast corner of Riverfront Drive and Riverbend Road. The approved plan allowed living areas consisting of 180,000 square feet while the parking deck had 54,000 square feet of area. A maximum building height of 175 feet was approved. The floors consisted of the following: Floors 1 —2 would be used as a parking deck with 50 spaces per level, Floor 3 would be the amenities floor for exercise, storage, meeting, guest suites, Floors 4 —11 would be used as living units at six units per floor and a total of 48 units and Floor 12 would contain two penthouse units. March 1, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7585 The layout provided 43 spaces for visitors, staff and event parking adjacent to Riverfront Drive. Landscape areas were significant with approximately 30 percent of the development reserved for green space. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time extension for implementation of the previously approved PRD. Per Section 36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on the project in an effort to refine and further improve the design. As a part of these efforts the developers have engaged a firm to provide additional design and consulting services. All the design changes are well within the perimeters of the previously approved PRD. The intention is to begin actively marketing the River Tower residences within 6 — 8 weeks. The developers have indicated permitting cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of the previously approved PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the Riverdale area which has developed with a mixture of uses. The site is a grass covered vacant site. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the east of the site and another located to the north and northeast. To the south of the site is the Alltel complex and to the west of the site is a private school and a office building. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The River Bend Property Owners Association, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the proposed development were notified of the public hearing. 2 March 1, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS - Staff recommends approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 1, 2007) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. Mr. Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. Mr. Hathaway stated the Commission was not here to discuss whether the development should occur only if the time extension should be granted. He stated the development was debated at great length a few years ago and the development was determined appropriate for the site. He stated with a project of this magnitude it took time to address all the dynamics of the development. He stated the developers were working with a design firm to create a development that would be an asset to the community and the neighbors. Mr. Sterling Cockrill addressed the Commission in opposition of the time extension. He stated the River Bend Property Owners Association was opposed to the development of a thirteen story building on the site. He stated he was opposed to the time extension because the neighbors were sitting on edge waiting for the project to occur. He stated the neighbors want the project to move forward or to be abandoned. Mr. Jim Hathaway stated the developers were committed to building the project. He stated the land had been purchased and design fees paid. He stated the developers had already spent a great deal of money and in the next few months would spend additional funds to move the project forward. The Commission questioned what activities had taken place to date. Mr. Hathaway stated the land was purchased, design had taken place, he stated his firm was not happy with the design so a second firm had been retained to give new insight to the development. He stated the number of units had been reduced and the building pulled away from the rear property line. He stated all the revisions were within the approved PD -R perimeters. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7585 NAME: The River Tower Long -form PD -R LOCATION: On the Northeast corner of River Bend Road and River Front Drive DEVELOPER: The Hathaway Group 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.2 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: UMBER OF LOTS: 1 0-3, General Office General Office FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USE: Twelve Story Residential Condo Development (50 - Units Total) VARIAN C ESMAIVE RS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a single 12 story building on this 3.2 acre site at the northeast corner of Riverfront Drive and Riverbend Road. The applicant has indicated living areas consist of 180,000 square feet while the parking deck has 54,000 square feet of area. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height is 175 feet. The proposed height is slightly less than the exiting Alltel building located to the southeast. The building is to have a rera yard setback of 25 -feet. FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont.) The applicant has indicated the floors will consist of the following: Floors 1 —2 will be used as a parking deck with 50 spaces per level, Floor 3 will be the amenities floor for exercise, storage, meeting, guest suites, Floors 4 —11 will be used as living units at six units per floor and a total of 48 units and Floor 12 will contain two penthouse units. The layout provides 43 spaces for visitors, staff and event parking adjacent to Riverfront Drive. The applicant has indicated landscape areas are significant with approximately 30 percent of the development reserved for green spade. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the Riverdale area which as developed with a mixture of uses. The site is a grass covered vacant site. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the east of the site and another located to the north and northeast. To the south of the site is the Alltel complex and to the west of the site is a private school and an office building. Other uses in the area include multi -family and warehouse activities. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from area residents in opposition of the proposed request. Staff has also received several phone calls from area residents requesting additional information and some in support of the proposed request. The Sherrill Heights Garden Club, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site and all property owners located within 200 -feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Provide sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps on all boundary streets. 2. To minimize traffic conflicts, design the traffic circle at the property frontage to FHWA standards. Directional islands should be provided to move traffic counter clock -wise, with a turn radius appropriate for the design vehicle. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No construction within the existing sewer easement. Sewer is available and not adversely affected. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Paint Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for high-rise multifamily building. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Proposed street buffer width along Riverfront Drive falls short of the minimum nine (9) foot allowed by both the zoning and the landscape ordinances. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 1, 2004) The applicant has present. Staff stated the proposed request was for a planned development to allow the placement of a twelve story residential building on the site. Staff requested Mr. Hathaway give a brief overview of the proposed request. Mr. Hathaway stated the development would be developed under a horizontal property regime with all units owner occupied. He stated the proposed development would be approximately 175 feet in height. He stated the development would contain 50 residential units. Mr. Hathaway stated approximately 30 percent of the site would be heavily landscaped. Staff requested the applicant provide additional information concerning the proposed site plan. Staff requested building elevations of the proposed development. Staff also requested the applicant locate the dumpster on the site plan. Mr. Hathaway stated the dumpster was internal to the building. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the development would be required to repair and or replace any curb, gutter or sidewalk in the right-of-way prior to occupancy. Staff noted the comment from Little Rock Wastewater. Staff stated the development could not construct any buildings within the existing 25 -foot utility easement. Staff stated the applicant should contact Little Rock Wastewater to resolve any and all outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted building elevations and a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 1, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has not indicated any building construction within the 25 - foot utility easement but the developer will have to work closely with Wastewater to ensure no damage is done to the line during construction. The applicant has indicated the proposed development sign will be a ground mounted precast sign with etched letters. The sign is proposed as four feet in height and eighteen feet long. The total sign area is 72 square feet. The typical signage allowed in multi -family zones is a maximum of six feet in height not to exceed twenty-four square feet in sign area. Staff is supportive of the requested signage. The development includes the placement of 50 residential units, which results in a density of 15.6 units per acre. The development would be allowed through a 4 FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont. Conditional Use Permit under the existing zoning to develop multi -family per the R-5 zoning district or at a density of not more than thirty-six units per acre. The applicant has indicated a total of 143 parking spaces on the site plan. The proposed development would typically require seventy-five parking spaces or one and one-half spaces per unit. The applicant is requesting to develop the site with a structure 175 feet in height. The site is currently zoned 0-3, General Office District which would allow for construction of a building sixty feet in height if all applicable setbacks are met. The zoning ordinance also includes an R-6 high-rise apartment district. The maximum building height in this zoning district is one hundred twenty-five feet. The applicant has indicated a reduced buffer along Riverfront Drive. The required buffer in this area would typically be a minimum nine foot landscape strip. The applicant has indicated by reducing the street buffer the building will be shifted to the west to allow additional setback from the rear property line. Staff has some concerns with the overall proposal. Staff feels the use is appropriate for the site and the proposed development will no doubt be a "quality development". The development would be able to develop at a greater density than proposed under the current zoning. The applicant has indicated the building has been situated to take advantage of views for all the units on all the levels. The proposed development contains three floors of parking and amenities before reaching the first of the residential units. The applicant has also designed the structure to sit on a base and the area of the residential units will be "pulled back". Staff does however have concerns with the proposed building height and proposed building setback. To the east of the site is a condo development consisting of two to four story units. Staff has some concerns of the impact a twelve story building will have on these existing residential units with the close relationship to the rear property line. The applicant has indicted the building height to be similar to the Alltel Building located to the south. The Alltel Building is located on a large tract and has a larger setback from the roadways. The proposed setback from the rear property line is very close to an existing wastewater utility easement. The sewer line located in this area is the main feeder line serving West Little Rock. The Wastewater Department has indicated construction in this area is allowable but the placement of the pylons will be very closely supervised to ensure no damage is done to the line. As stated staff has some concerns with providing a recommendation of approval based on the current design. Staff feels a reduced scale of the development would be more appropriate for the site. 5 Ik1k1Q1WAV • *V19f•T0 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 22, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a revised plan indicating a reduction in the number of units and increased building setbacks. Staff stated they were requesting the item be deferred to the May 6, 2004, Public Hearing to allow staff additional time to review the new site plan. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the May 6, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 6, 2004) Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the request. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the applicant's amended request. Staff stated the applicant had redesigned the building to be located no closer than 80 -feet from the eastern property line. Staff stated the previous plan indicated the building at 25 -feet from the eastern property line. Staff stated the applicant had also indicated the glass portion of the tower will be no closer than 100 -feet from the eastern property line. Staff stated the applicant had decreased the number of units from 50 to 38 and added one story to the building resulting in a 13 -story building. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the first two levels would continue to house parking and level three would continue to be an amenities floor. Staff stated floors 4 — 12 would each contain residential living quarters at four units per floor and level thirteen would contain two living quarters or the penthouse units. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the ground floors would be screened from the eastern property line with dense plantings and extensive landscaping adjacent to the parking deck. Staff stated level three would also be screened with year around evergreen plantings in planter boxes along the east wall. Staff stated the applicant had indicated every effort would be made to direct views away from the adjoining properties to the east. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the building would be 165 feet in height to the rooftop of the penthouse units and 181 feet in height to the top of the mechanical penthouse. Staff stated the mechanical penthouse was located adjacent to Riverfront Drive, away from the residential properties to the east. Staff stated the site was currently zoned 0-3 and with a Conditional Use Permit development of the site as R-5, Urban Residential District was an allowable use. Staff stated the typical maximum building height for this zoning district was 45 -feet with a maximum height of sixty feet. Staff stated the Zoning Ordinance also allowed for development of R-6, High-rise [: FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont. Apartment District, although this was not an allowable use under the Zoning Ordinance for 0-3, General Office District. Staff stated the maximum building height was 125 -feet for the R-5, Urban Residential District. Staff stated this information was being give to the Commission for reference purposes. Staff stated the applicant had indicated two levels of parking on the proposed site plan as well as surface parking for guest. Staff stated the site plan included the placement of 100 plus parking spaces on the site. Staff stated the proposed parking was adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a multi -family development or one and one-half spaces per unit. Staff stated the proposed development had incorporated the parking within the building to allow for additional greens spaces. Staff stated the typical multi -family development placed the parking around the proposed buildings decreasing the available area for landscaping and green spaces. Staff stated they felt with the placement of parking within the proposed building would enhance the proposed development. Staff stated the applicant had indicated signage on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the proposed sign area was four feet by eighteen feet and a total area of seventy-two square feet. Staff stated the typical signage allowed in multi -family developments per the Zoning Ordinance was six feet in height and twenty-four square feet of sign area. Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed signage. Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed development as amended. Staff stated the applicant had increased the building setback and reduced the number of units proposed within the development. Staff stated the applicant had indicated a density of 11.8 units per acre well within the allowable density of the R-5, Urban Residential District. Staff stated the applicant had moved the building as close as feasible to Riverfront Drive to increase the building setback from the eastern property line. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a reduced landscape buffer along Riverfront Drive. Staff stated the proposed site plan indicated a 6.9 -foot minimum landscape strip along the roadway. Staff stated this was sufficient to meet the Landscape Ordinance requirement. Staff stated they felt the proposed development was a classic in -fill development and the applicant had done a good job of working within restricted perimeters of an established area. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the development would result in the construction of high quality residential housing east of University Avenue adding to the downtown housing market. Staff stated in addition the site was located in an area of mixed uses ranging from single-family residential to industrial uses. Staff stated the developer had tried to minimize staffs concerns by increasing setbacks and reducing the density of the development. Staff stated they had always been supportive of the proposed use of the site and felt multi -family an appropriate use for the site. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the request. He stated the development was a quality development and in his opinion the best development he had brought the FA FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont. Commission in his 37 -years of appearing before the City. He stated the development was the first of its type since the mid to late 1980's. He stated the development would have several amenities including a full staff. Mr. Hathaway stated the development had been situated to take advantage of the river view for all the proposed units. He stated landscaping would add to the character of the site. He stated the eastern property line would be heavily landscaped to limit the intrusion to the single-family homes located to the east. Mr. Hathaway stated economics were important to the development. He stated with the reduction in the number of units he needed an additional floor to allow the development to remain affordable as far as maintenance fees. He stated overall the number of units had decreased from fifty units to thirty-eight units. He stated the entrance to the development would be from River Bend Drive or Riverfront Drive. He stated the development was placing guest parking along Riverfront Drive to limit the intrusion to the residential to the east. Mr. Dick Downing addressed the Commission in opposition of the request on behalf of the River Bend Property Owners Association. He stated the area ten years ago did not exist as it existed currently. He stated the neighborhood was not opposed to the use of the property only the height of the building. He stated the proposed development was a planned development which did not have limitations except those imposed by the Commission. He stated the request far exceeded the allowable height in R-5, Urban Residential District. He stated the maximum height of a cell tower was 150 -feet and the requested high-rise tower exceeded that height as well. Mr. Downing stated the request was three times that allowed under the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification. Mr. Downing introduced graphic representations of the effect the building would have on the adjoining properties. He provided a representation of each of the views the eastern property owners would have when the new tower was constructed. He also produced a study indicating the shadow effect the tower would have on adjoining properties. Mr. Downing demonstrated the River Bend property owners would have some shadowing every day of the year for some portion of the day. Mr. Downing also addressed the Commission atop a ten -foot ladder indicating his position atop the ladder was similar to the effect the tower would have on the adjoining River Bend Properties. He stated the request was to big and to tall for the site. Mr. Carl Whillock addressed the Commission as a member of the Board of Directors for the River Bend Property Owners Association. He stated there were thirty-four owners of property in the River Bend Subdivision and thirty-one of those had signed a petition expressing concerns with the proposed height of the building. He stated of the residents of Canal Point ninety percent of the property owners had also signed a similar petition expressing concern of the proposed building height. Mr. Whillock stated he had been informed one-half of the property owners in Tree Tops had also signed a petition expressing concern of the proposed height of the building. Mr. Whillock stated the neighborhood had concerns with lighting. He stated with the tower lights would shine into the adjoining residents homes. He stated the request was E.: FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont. something that should not be allowed because of its massing. He stated if the building were lower or an office uses as allowed under the current 0-3, General Office District zoning this would be an acceptable use. He stated office users would not be accessing the site after 5:00 pm, which was typically when the residents of River Bend were returning home to enjoy their evenings. He stated the proposed project was located in the wrong place. He stated there was property located in the area, which was suitable for this type development and would not have an impact on existing single-family homes. He stated one-half mile north of the site was a vacant tract and the nearest resident was two hundred feet away. He indicated three additional locations where the proposed development would have a limited impact on adjoining properties. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission once again on the merits of the development. He stated the majority of a neighborhood in opposition did not indicate a majority of the citizens of the City. He stated the proposed development would generate $483,000 per year in increased tax base. Mr. Hathaway stated the development had been moved back as far as feasible to limit the impact on the nearby residents. He stated his firm conducted a shadow study. He stated he did not present the study to the Commission because the findings were no longer relevant. He stated the building had been narrowed, moved from the property line and increased in height. He stated a building one story taller would not cast the same shadow. Commissioner Rector questioned if other locations had been explored. Mr. Hathaway stated he had looked at other sites but the proposed site was best suited to the proposed development based on the size and shape. He stated with river views if you were not the first building then there would come a time that someone would develop the site to take full advantage of the view. In this case that would mean building a high-rise building. Mr. Hathaway stated there were other parts of the country that were developing mix - housing types. He stated high end housing in the same community weather single -story of multi -story if the homes were of the same value this would not affect the resale of the nearby homes. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the shadow effect on adjoining properties. The discussion included comments that a one hundred twenty-five foot building would not cast the same shadow as a one hundred eighty foot building. Comments were made concerning an eight story building versus a thirteen - story building. The Commission indicated the lesser building height was not the action before the Commission for a vote. Commissioner Rector questioned the allowable uses of the site. Staff stated the site was zoned 0-3, General Office District and the allowed maximum building height was sixty feet. Staff stated with a conditional use permit the site could develop with densities allowed under the R-5 Zoning District or thirty-six units per acre. Commissioner Rector stated his role was to look at the overall development plan and weigh in his decision what would be allowed on the site. He stated with the current zoning a five -story office �9 FILE NO.: Z-7585 (Cont.) building or a multi -family development at close to three times the density proposed could locate on the site. Commissioner Floyd stated he was supportive of the proposed development. He stated he felt the request was located in the wrong place. He stated had the tower existing prior to the residents of River Bend purchasing their homes he did not feel they would have bought in that location. Commissioner Williams indicated he also supported the project but not in the proposed location. He stated River Bend and Canal Point were there first and he felt adding the tower would have a negative impact on their properties. A motion was made to approve the request as presented to the Commission. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. 10 May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N NAME: The River Tower Long -form PD -R FILE NO.: Z-7585 LOCATION: On the Northeast corner of River Bend Road and River Front Drive DEVELOPER: The Hathaway Group 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.2 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 0-3, General Office General Office PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USE: Twelve Story Residential Condo Development (50 - Units Total) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a single 12 story building on this 3.2 acre site at the northeast corner of Riverfront Drive and Riverbend Road. The applicant has indicated living areas consist of 180,000 square feet while the parking deck has 54,000 square feet of area. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height is 175 feet. The proposed height is slightly less than the exiting Alltel building located to the southeast. The building is to have a rera yard setback of 25 -feet. The applicant has indicated the floors will consist of the following: Floors 1 —2 will be used as a parking deck with 50 spaces per level, Floor 3 will May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 be the amenities floor for exercise, storage, meeting, guest suites, Floors 4 —11 will be used as living units at six units per floor and a total of 48 units and Floor 12 will contain two penthouse units. The layout provides 43 spaces for visitors, staff and event parking adjacent to Riverfront Drive. The applicant has indicated landscape areas are significant with approximately 30 percent of the development reserved for green spade. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the Riverdale area which as developed with a mixture of uses. The site is a grass covered vacant site. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the east of the site and another located to the north and northeast. To the south of the site is the Alltel complex and to the west of the site is a private school and an office building. Other uses in the area include multi -family and warehouse activities. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: 19 E As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from area residents in opposition of the proposed request. Staff has also received several phone calls from area residents requesting additional information and some in support of the proposed request. The Sherrill Heights Garden Club, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site and all property owners located within 200 -feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: Repair or replace any curb and gutter public right-of-way prior to occupancy. handicap ramps on all boundary streets. or sidewalk that is damaged in the Provide sidewalks with appropriate 2. To minimize traffic conflicts, design the traffic circle at the property frontage to FHWA standards. Directional islands should be provided to move traffic counter clock -wise, with a turn radius appropriate for the design vehicle. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No construction within the existing sewer easement. Sewer is available and not adversely affected. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. 2 May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7585 Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for high-rise multifamily building. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. "_Recognized Neighborhood Action Pian: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Proposed street buffer width along Riverfront Drive falls short of the minimum nine (9) foot allowed by both the zoning and the landscape ordinances. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 3 May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 1, 2004) The applicant has present. Staff stated the proposed request was for a planned development to allow the placement of a twelve story residential building on the site. Staff requested Mr. Hathaway give a brief overview of the proposed request. Mr. Hathaway stated the development would be developed under a horizontal property regime with all units owner occupied. He stated the proposed development would be approximately 175 feet in height. He stated the development would contain 50 residential units. Mr. Hathaway stated approximately 30 percent of the site would be heavily landscaped. Staff requested the applicant provide additional information concerning the proposed site plan. Staff requested building elevations of the proposed development. Staff also requested the applicant locate the dumpster on the site plan. Mr. Hathaway stated the dumpster was internal to the building. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the development would be required to repair and or replace any curb, gutter or sidewalk in the right-of- way prior to occupancy. Staff noted the comment from Little Rock Wastewater. Staff stated the development could not construct any buildings within the existing 25 -foot utility easement. Staff stated the applicant should contact Little Rock Wastewater to resolve any and all outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted building elevations and a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 1, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has not indicated any building construction within the 25 - foot utility easement but the developer will have to work closely with Wastewater to ensure no damage is done to the line during construction. The applicant has indicated the proposed development sign will be a ground mounted precast sign with etched letters. The sign is proposed as four feet in height and eighteen feet long. The total sign area is 72 square feet. The typical signage allowed in multi -family zones is a maximum of six feet in height not to exceed twenty-four square feet in sign area. Staff is supportive of the requested signage. 4 May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 The development includes the placement of 50 residential units, which results in a density of 15.6 units per acre. The development would be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit under the existing zoning to develop multi -family per the R-5 zoning district or at a density of not more than thirty-six units per acre. The applicant has indicated a total of 143 parking spaces on the site plan. The proposed development would typically require seventy-five parking spaces or one and one-half spaces per unit. The applicant is requesting to develop the site with a structure 175 feet in height. The site is currently zoned 0-3, General Office District which would allow for construction of a building sixty feet in height if all applicable setbacks are met. The zoning ordinance also includes an R-6 high-rise apartment district. The maximum building height in this zoning district is one hundred twenty-five feet. The applicant has indicated a reduced buffer along Riverfront Drive. The required buffer in this area would typically be a minimum nine foot landscape strip. The applicant has indicated by reducing the street buffer the building will be shifted to the west to allow additional setback from the rear property line. Staff has some concerns with the overall proposal. Staff feels the use is appropriate for the site and the proposed development will no doubt be a "quality development". The development would be able to develop at a greater density than proposed under the current zoning. The applicant has indicated the building has been situated to take advantage of views for all the units on all the levels. The proposed development contains three floors of parking and amenities before reaching the first of the residential units. The applicant has also designed the structure to sit on a base and the area of the residential units will be "pulled back". Staff does however have concerns with the proposed building height and proposed building setback. To the east of the site is a condo development consisting of two to four story units. Staff has some concerns of the impact a twelve story building will have on these existing residential units with the close relationship to the rear property line. The applicant has indicted the building height to be similar to the Alltel Building located to the south. The Alltel Building is located on a large tract and has a larger setback from the roadways. The proposed setback from the rear property line is very close to an existing wastewater utility easement. The sewer line located in this area is the main feeder line serving West Little Rock. The Wastewater Department has indicated construction in this area is allowable but the placement of the pylons will be very closely supervised to ensure no damage is done to the line. 5 May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N JCont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 As stated staff has some concerns with providing a recommendation of approval based on the current design. Staff feels a reduced scale of the development would be more appropriate for the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 22, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a revised plan indicating a reduction in the number of units and increased building setbacks. Staff stated they were requesting the item be deferred to the May 6, 2004, Public Hearing to allow staff additional time to review the new site plan. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the May 6, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 6, 2004) Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the request. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the applicant's amended request. Staff stated the applicant had redesigned the building to be located no closer than 80 -feet from the eastern property line. Staff stated the previous plan indicated the building at 25 -feet from the eastern property line. Staff stated the applicant had also indicated the glass portion of the tower will be no closer than 100 - feet from the eastern property line. Staff stated the applicant had decreased the number of units from 50 to 38 and added one story to the building resulting in a 13 -story building. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the first two levels would continue to house parking and level three would continue to be an amenities floor. Staff stated floors 4 — 12 would each contain residential living quarters at four units per floor and level thirteen would contain two living quarters or the penthouse units. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the ground floors would be screened from the eastern property line with dense plantings and extensive landscaping adjacent to the parking deck. Staff stated level three would also be screened with year around evergreen plantings in planter boxes along the east wall. Staff stated the applicant had indicated every effort would be made to direct views away from the adjoining properties to the east. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the building would be 165 feet in height to the rooftop of the penthouse units and 181 feet in height to the top of the mechanical penthouse. Staff stated the mechanical penthouse was located adjacent to Riverfront R, May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 Drive, away from the residential properties to the. east. Staff stated the site was currently zoned 0-3 and with a Conditional Use Permit development of the site as R-5, Urban Residential District was an allowable use. Staff stated the typical maximum building height for this zoning district was 45 -feet with a maximum height of sixty feet. Staff stated the Zoning Ordinance also allowed for development of R-6, High-rise Apartment District, although this was not an allowable use under the Zoning Ordinance for 0-3, General Office District. Staff stated the maximum building height was 125 -feet for the R -S, Urban Residential District. Staff stated this information was being give to the Commission for reference purposes. Staff stated the applicant had indicated two levels of parking on the proposed site plan as well as surface parking for guest. Staff stated the site plan included the placement of 100 plus parking spaces on the site. Staff stated the proposed parking was adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a multi -family development or one and one-half spaces per unit. Staff stated the proposed development had incorporated the parking within the building to allow for additional greens spaces. Staff stated the typical multi -family development placed the parking around the proposed buildings decreasing the available area for landscaping and green spaces. Staff stated they felt with the placement of parking within the proposed building would enhance the proposed development. Staff stated the applicant had indicated signage on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the proposed sign area was four feet by eighteen feet and a total area of seventy-two square feet. Staff stated the typical signage allowed in multi -family developments per the Zoning Ordinance was six feet in height and twenty-four square feet of sign area. Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed signage. Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed development as amended. Staff stated the applicant had increased the building setback and reduced the number of units proposed within the development. Staff stated the applicant had indicated a density of 11.8 units per acre well within the allowable density of the R-5, Urban Residential District. Staff stated the applicant had moved the building as close as feasible to Riverfront Drive to increase the building setback from the eastern property line. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a reduced landscape buffer along Riverfront Drive. Staff stated the proposed site plan indicated a 6.9 -foot minimum landscape strip along the roadway. Staff stated this was sufficient to meet the Landscape Ordinance requirement. Staff stated they felt the proposed development was a classic in -fill development and the applicant had done a good job of working within restricted perimeters of an established area. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the development would result in the construction of high quality residential housing east of University Avenue adding to the downtown housing market. Staff stated in addition the site was located in an area of mixed uses ranging from single-family residential to industrial uses. Staff stated the developer had tried to minimize staff's concerns by increasing setbacks and 7 May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 reducing the density of the development. Staff stated they had always been supportive of the proposed use of the site and felt multi -family an appropriate use for the site. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the request. He stated the development was a quality development and in his opinion the best development he had brought the Commission in his 37 -years of appearing before the City. He stated the development was the first of its type since the mid to late 1980's. He stated the development would have several amenities including a full staff. Mr. Hathaway stated the development had been situated to take advantage of the river view for all the proposed units. He stated landscaping would add to the character of the site. He stated the eastern property line would be heavily landscaped to limit the intrusion to the single-family homes located to the east. Mr. Hathaway stated economics were important to the development. He stated with the reduction in the number of units he needed an additional floor to allow the development to remain affordable as far as maintenance fees. He stated overall the number of units had decreased from fifty units to thirty-eight units. He stated the entrance to the development would be from River Bend Drive or Riverfront Drive. He stated the development was placing guest parking along Riverfront Drive to limit the intrusion to the residential to the east. Mr. Dick Downing addressed the Commission in opposition of the request on behalf of the River Bend Property Owners Association. He stated the area ten years ago did not exist as it existed currently. He stated the neighborhood was not opposed to the use of the property only the height of the building. He stated the proposed development was a planned development which did not have limitations except those imposed by the Commission. He stated the request far exceeded the allowable height in R-5, Urban Residential District. He stated the maximum height of a cell tower was 150 -feet and the requested high-rise tower exceeded that height as well. Mr. Downing stated the request was three times that allowed under the 0-3, General Office District zoning classification. Mr. Downing introduced graphic representations of the effect the building would have on the adjoining properties. He provided a representation of each of the views the eastern property owners would have when the new tower was constructed. He also produced a study indicating the shadow effect the tower would have on adjoining properties. Mr. Downing demonstrated the River Bend property owners would have some shadowing every day of the year for some portion of the day. Mr. Downing also addressed the Commission atop . a ten -foot ladder indicating his position atop the ladder was similar to the effect the tower would have on the adjoining River Bend Properties. He stated the request was to big and to tall for the site. E May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7585 Mr. Carl Whillock addressed the Commission as a member of the Board of Directors for the River Bend Property Owners Association. He stated there were thirty-four owners of property in the River Bend Subdivision and thirty-one of those had signed a petition expressing concerns with the proposed height of the building. He stated of the residents of Canal Point ninety percent of the property owners had also signed a similar petition expressing concern of the proposed building height. Mr. Whillock stated he had been informed one-half of the property owners in Tree Tops had also signed a petition expressing concern of the proposed height of the building. Mr. Whillock stated the neighborhood had concerns with lighting. He stated with the tower lights would shine into the adjoining residents homes. He stated the request was something that should not be allowed because of its massing. He stated if the building were lower or an office uses as allowed under the current 0-3, General Office District zoning this would be an acceptable use. He stated office users would not be accessing the site after 5:00 pm, which was typically when the residents of River Bend were returning home to enjoy their evenings. He stated the proposed project was located in the wrong place. He stated there was property located in the area, which was suitable for this type development and would not have an impact on existing single-family homes. He stated one-half mile north of the site was a vacant tract and the nearest resident was two hundred feet away. He indicated three additional locations where the proposed development would have a limited impact on adjoining properties. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission once again on the merits of the development. He stated the majority of a neighborhood in opposition did not indicate a majority of the citizens of the City. He stated the proposed development would generate $483,000 per year in increased tax base. Mr. Hathaway stated the development had been moved back as far as feasible to limit the impact on the nearby residents. He stated his firm conducted a shadow study. He stated he did not present the study to the Commission because the findings were no longer relevant. He stated the building had been narrowed, moved from the property line and increased in height. He stated a building one story taller would not cast the same shadow. Commissioner Rector questioned if other locations had been explored. Mr. Hathaway stated he had looked at other sites but the proposed site was best suited to the proposed development based on the size and shape. He stated with river views if you were not the first building then there would come a time that someone would develop the site to take full advantage of the view. In this case that would mean building a high- rise building. Mr. Hathaway stated there were other parts of the country that were developing mix - housing types. He stated high end housing in the same community weather single - story of multi -story if the homes were of the same value this would not affect the resale of the nearby homes. D May 6, 2004 ITEM NO.: N {Cont.} FILE NO.: Z-7585 There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the shadow effect on adjoining properties. The discussion included comments that a one hundred twenty-five foot building would not cast the same shadow as a one hundred eighty foot building. Comments were made concerning an eight story building versus a thirteen - story building. The Commission indicated the lesser building height was not the action before the Commission for a vote. Commissioner Rector questioned the allowable uses of the site. Staff stated the site was zoned 0-3, General Office District and the allowed maximum building height was sixty feet. Staff stated with a conditional use permit the site could develop with densities allowed under the R-5 Zoning District or thirty-six units per acre. Commissioner Rector stated his role was to look at the overall development plan and weigh in his decision what would be allowed on the site. He stated with the current zoning a five -story office building or a multi -family development at close to three times the density proposed could locate on the site. Commissioner Floyd stated he was supportive of the proposed development. He stated he felt the request was located in the wrong place. He stated had the tower existing prior to the residents of River Bend purchasing their homes he did not feel they would have bought in that location. Commissioner Williams indicated he also supported the project but not in the proposed location. He stated River Bend and Canal Point were there first and he felt adding the tower would have a negative impact on their properties. A motion was made to approve the request as presented to the Commission. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. 10 -3 J River Towers Long -form PD -R (Z-7585) .. 3? The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing some of the issues raised in the staff write-up for the April 22, 2004 Public Hearing. The applicant has redesigned the building to be located no closer than 80 -feet from the eastern property line. The previous plan indicated the building at 25 -feet from the eastern property line. The applicant has also indicated the glass portion of the tower will be no closer than 100 -feet from the eastern property line. The applicant has decreased the number of units from 50 to 38 and added one story to the building resulting in a 13 -story building. The applicant has indicated the first two levels will continue to house parking ]. and level three will continue to be an amenities floor. Floors 4— 12 will each contain residential [! • " living quarters at four units per floor and level thirteen will contain two living quarters or the Q° penthouse units. The applicant has indicated the ground floors will be screened from the eastern property line with dense plantings and extensive landscaping adjacent to the parking deck. Level three will also be screened with year around evergreen plantings in planter boxes along the east _Z7 wall. The applicant has indicated every effort will be made to direct views away from the 14Y adjoining properties to the east. The applicant has indicated the building will be 165 feet in height to the rooftop of the penthouse units and 181 feet in height to the top of the mechanical penthouse. The mechanical penthouse is located adjacent to Riverfront Drive, away from the residential properties to the east. The site is currently zoned 0-3 and with a Conditional Use Permit development of the site as R-5, Urban Residential District is an allowable use. The typical maximum building height for this zoning district is 35 -feet. The Zoning Ordinance also allows for development of R-6, High-rise Apartment District, (although not allowable under the Zoning Ordinance for O 3, General Office District) with a maximum building height of 125 -feet. ,p�y�vJ The applicant has indicated two levels of parking on the proposed site plan as well as surface parking for guest. The site plan includes the placement of 100 plus parking spaces on the site. The proposed parking is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a multi- family development or one and one-half spaces per unit. The proposed development has incorporated the parking within the building to allow for additional greens spaces. Typical multi- family developments place the parking around the proposed buildings decreasing the available area for landscaping and green spaces. Staff feels with the placement of parking within the proposed building will enhance the proposed development. The applicant has indicated signage on the proposed site plan. The proposed sign area is four feet by eighteen feet and a total area of seventy-two square feet. The typical signage allowed in multi- family developments per the Zoning Ordinance is six feet in height and twenty-four square feet of sign area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. Staff is supportive of the proposed development as amended. The applicant has increased the building setback and reduced the number of units proposed within the development. The applicant has indicated a density of 11.8 units per acre well within the allowable density of the R- 5, Urban Residential District. The applicant has moved the building as close as feasible to Riverfront Drive to increase the building setback from the eastern property line. The applicant is requesting a reduced landscape buffer along Riverfront Drive. The proposed site plan indicates a 6.9 -feet minimum landscape strip along the roadway. This is sufficient to meet the Landscape Ordinance requirement. Staff feels the proposed development a classic in -fill development and the applicant has done a good job of working within restricted perimeters of an established area. The applicant has indicated the development will result in the construction of high quality residential housing east of University Avenue adding to the downtown housing market. In addition the site is located in an area of mixed uses ranging from single -family residential to industrial uses. The developer has tried to minimize staffs concerns by increasing setbacks and reducing the density of the, development Staff has always been supportive of the proposed use of the site and feels multi- family an appropriate use for the site. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. ITEM NO.: -4c--1 FILE NO.: Z-7585 NAME: The River Tower Long -form PD -R LOCATION: On the Northeast corner of River Bend Road and Riverfront Drive Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 211 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Label all proposed building setbacks on the proposed site plan. 3. Provide details of any proposed signage (height/area/location) on the proposed site plan. 4. Will there be a dumpster located on the site? If so indicate the location along with a note concerning the required screening. 5. Provide building elevations of the proposed development. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works: L�-- 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thbt is '�amaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Provide sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps on all boundary streets. 2. To minimize traffic conflicts, design the traffic circle at the property frontage to FHWA standards. Directional islands should be provided to move traffic counter clock -wise, with a turn radius appropriate for the design vehicle. 4A.aJL_ Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: C Qm— Wastewater: No construction within the existing sewer Basemen . wer 'is"'a slab e and not adversely affected. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.OL t_"' ,.y Entergy: No comment received. d Loa -0 '� Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. xt Q �p SBC: No comment received. "-Ok G•sCLf_, Central Arkansas Water. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918- 3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for high-rise multifamily building. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Proposed street buffer width along Riverfront Drive falls short of the minimum nine (9) foot allowed by both the zoning and the landscape ordinances. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, February 25, 2004. FILE NO.: Z-7585 NAME: River Tower Short -form PD -R Revocation LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of River Bend and River Front Drive DEVELOPER: Coldwell Banker Commercial Hathaway Group Attn. Jim Hathaway 2100 Riverdale, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 722002 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.2 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 -= FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Residential Tower — 50 units REVOCATION ZONING: 0-3, General Office District VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,127 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 15, 2004, established the River Tower Short -form PD -R. The approval allowed the construction of a 12 story building on this 3.2 acre site located at the northeast corner of Riverfront Drive and Riverbend Road. The floors consisted of the following: Floors 1 —2 would be used as a parking deck with 50 spaces per level, Floor 3 would be the amenities floor for exercise, storage, meeting, guest suites, Floors 4 -11 would be used as living units at six units per floor and a total of 48 units and Floor 12 would contain two penthouse units. FILE NO.: Z-7585 Cont. The layout provided 43 spaces for visitors, staff and event parking adjacent to Riverfront Drive. Landscape areas were significant with approximately 30 percent of the development reserved for green space. On March 1, 2007, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a two-year time extension for the approval of the PD -R. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT - Per Section 36-458(a) Cause for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD or PD approval be revoked and all building permits or certificates of occupancy be voided under the following circumstances: (1) The applicant has not submitted a final development plan to staff. Where a staged development plan is approved the Board of Directors may revoke the entire preliminary plan or may revoke only that stage on which a final plan has not been submitted and approved. (2) Construction has not commenced within the time allowed. (3) The applicant has not adhered to the development schedule as stated in the approved preliminary plan. In addition, to the revocation for cause, Section 36-454(e) final development plan states the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of .the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Request for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission, which may grant one extension of not more than two years. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. Per the ordinance requirement of the procedure for revocation, staff has contacted the applicant indicating the default of approval and setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PD -R zoning classification. According to the ordinance, the Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation, which shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors for disposition as in the original approval. The applicant is agreeable to the revocation of the PD -R zoning and the restoration of the previously held 0-3, General Office District zoning classification. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the Riverdale area, which has developed with a mixture of uses. The site is a grass covered vacant site. There is a single-family neighborhood located to the east of the site and another located to the north and northeast. To the south of the site is an office complex and to the west of the site is a private school and an office building. 6 C 0 .: Z-7585 (Cont. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT (March 31, 2011) Staff outlined the request to the Committee members present. There was no discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels the approval should be voided since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff recommends the current PD -R zoning classification be revoked and the previously held 0-3, General Office zoning be restored. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 21, 2011) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating they felt the approval should be voided since the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff presented a recommendation the current PD -R zoning classification be revoked and the previously held 0-3, General Office zoning be restored. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. K3